Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday April 11, 2013 @09:02PM
from the yes-we-are-all-individuals dept.

ananyo writes "When U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last year that he was not even going to try to reach 47% of the US electorate, and that he would focus on the 5–10% thought to be floating voters, he was articulating a commonly held opinion: that most voters are locked in to their ideological party loyalty. But Lars Hall, a cognitive scientist at Lund University in Sweden, knew better. When Hall and his colleagues tested the rigidity of people's political attitudes and voting intentions during Sweden's 2010 general election, they discovered that loyalty was malleable: nearly half of all voters were open to changing their minds. Hall's group polled 162 voters during the final weeks of the election campaign, asking them which of two opposing political coalitions — conservative or social democrat/green — they intended to vote for. The researchers also asked voters to rate where they stood on 12 key political issues, including tax rates and nuclear power. The person conducting the experiment secretly filled in an identical survey with the reverse of the voter's answers, and used sleight-of-hand to exchange the answer sheets, placing the voter in the opposite political camp. The researcher invited the voter to give reasons for their manipulated opinions, then summarized their score to give a probable political affiliation and asked again who they intended to vote for. On the basis of the manipulated score, 10% of the subjects switched their voting intentions, from right to left wing or vice versa. Another 19% changed from firm support of their preferred coalition to undecided. A further 18% had been undecided before the survey, indicating that as many as 47% of the electorate were open to changing their minds, in sharp contrast to the 10% of voters identified as undecided in Swedish polls at the time (research paper). Hall has used a similar sleight of hand before to show that our moral compass can often be easily reversed."

The mentality between countries are enormous. For example Canada seems like the US but it isn't. Canada thinks the US are evil and sue-happy. They are very liberal because they don't want to become what the US is. I'm not joking, this is pretty much the general consensus on why people vote liberal in Canada from the people I've talked to. Being raised there, I know this mentality well too. But in the US, there's a huge barrier between left and right. The left want their set of ideologies to be met, and the right want their own. The differences are too vast, but the ones that aren't democrat or republican will stick around even as for an independent party. But let's face it, at the end of the day an individual vote does not matter. The united states is a republic, not a democracy.

This. Sweden has one of the most educated populations in the world - Tertiary education costs something like 200 euros a year, and so university degrees are not just for the wealthy.

In New York, people will peg you as being a democrat or a republican based on what paper you happen to be reading on the subway. Some of them will get angry about it. Swedish society is far more civil.

Yeah in the US politics is like pro-wrestling. Just a lot less ethical but with more nukes involved.You'll have supporters and commentators on both sides yelling how great their "wrestler" is and how the other one is bad and doing bad stuff, and then when their wrestler does the same stuff they say it's OK.

For many the party affiliation is like a religion. Which is why I find it funny that so many Atheists think that getting rid of religion will solve problems. Many people have a need to be rabid fundamenta

Ok but that's not correct in terms of US politics. The point is Mitt didn't think he needed to build any bridges to the left to win, that the swing voters would be enough. He was wrong, he lost. This may be the anomaly: that someone would blatantly be on a platform of "screw half of you". He really thought he'd win, and he was close enough to be scary.

The US is known for very individualistic thinking, that's what differentiates us from many countries. The upside to individualism is that generally personal f

So it seems the study basically is demonstrating that some people are more amenable to a symbol of authority telling them what they actually think/believe. Although the extent to which it is important that the authority is perceived to be 'neutral' isn't clear from the study.

Because of the slight of hand and then confrontation, I would think it is more like people just rationalize the circumstances and then seek to defend the supposed position they took (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)) I also wonder if the researcher had any white lab coat, etc. that made them seem more authoritative?

One thing I've noticed (read: pure anecdote) is that most people who are enthusiastic about their party don't behave much differently from sports fans of opposing teams. It doesn't really matter what their side does, what matters is which letter wins the game. Even on Slashdot I've confronted a few people who say "well my side never does x abhorrent behavior" when all of ten seconds worth of Google found the opposite.

Personally I simply avoid registering to vote because all that happens is I get calls from people telling me to vote for their guy and they can't really explain why. For example I got a call from somebody on Matt Salmon's team telling me that they would repeal Obama Care, and lower medical costs through deregulation. Being a libertarian, that is music to my ears because I know from experience that red tape does raise costs in the medical field significantly. However when I asked what he would deregulate and how that would help, he didn't even know. But he expects me to vote for his guy anyways.

No thanks. I'd only register to vote if there was actually a significant movement to balance the budget and prevent what I see as an otherwise inevitable catastrophic economic collapse. I don't think that will ever happen though. Once you add social entitlements, no matter how unsustainable or unaffordable, they're basically impossible to get rid of. The best you can do is hedge your assets (gold is a horrible idea BTW) and grab your ankles.

most people who are enthusiastic about their party don't behave much differently from sports fans of opposing teams.

An important point. Politics is almost entirely tribal. We can see people voting against their best interests distributed evenly across the political spectrum (including so-called libertarian). And not just voting against their best interests, but even voting against their own firmly held beliefs.

The thing that concerns me almost as much is how much of politics is about being a jerk. Holding a position because it will piss off somebody from the other tribe. Notice how being [conservative, liberal] means that you have to adopt an entire menu of positions, not because you have formed opinions on all of those issues, but because that's what people of the tribe believe.

I'm pretty sure I don't have to point out any examples of this to most of you. It's so obvious as to be startling. That's why it makes news when someone from one political tribe suddenly adopts a position of the other tribe (for example, Rob Portman supports gay marriage). It's news because that's not a position a conservative is supposed to have and he is criticized. The notion that there are clearly delineated "conservative" or "liberal" positions that have to always go together and that people always have to run with the tribe is a hallmark of American politics at least.

It's also a hallmark of a population that's being manipulated. So why the tribes squabble over these territorial trivialities, the people who actually have power are cleaning out the vaults. Does anyone actually believe that we are an exactly 50/50 split country? And yet, that's how it's been working out for decades now. It just smells wrong.

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you are on, when something bothers you, always ask yourself "Who's really benefiting? You may be surprised at how often the answer is the same people, and they don't belong to either tribe.

I look at it more of a game of tug-of-war with a multi-pointed star of rope. Society is the knot floating in the middle of the star and the extremists trying to pull it in their direction. I jump on the Libertarian side and pull hard, not because I want a Libertarian utopian anarchy, but because I think the center of the star has floated a bit to far over the totalitarian side then I am comfortable with. If it moves back in the Liberty direction then I'd be less likely to tug as hard and more likely to enjoy that society has given me nice roads and at least a basically educated populace.

I think people are a bit more intelligent than you're giving them credit (some at least, I don't doubt that a fair amount of the electorate is truly tribal although that is a difficult thing to quantify). Politics is, well, politics. It's horse-trading. You sometimes vote for a candidate that holds views you dislike because he will advance certain agendas that you care about.

For example, I voted for Obama in the last election. It's not because I thought he was a great candidate. I hate many of his

Your mistake was voting for the lesser evil because you wanted to vote for someone who might win. That is the surest way to waste your vote in the american system.

Parties do not change when they get votes, they only change when they do not get votes. So vote your conscience. If you think you are more a Green than any other party, then you should have voted for the Green candidate. They have had a presidential candidate for the last 5 elections.

Wait, we are supposed to vote for our best interests? Here I am voting for people that claim to believe that all people should be treated equally under the law. I should be voting for the guy that promises jobs and special rights for middle aged white guys at the expense of everyone else. Also since I don't use drugs I guess my pro drug legalization position is wrong as well. Wow, it's all so clear now! I don't have to look at secondary and tertiary effects of policies to see how they will work in the real

I'd only register to vote if there was actually a significant movement to balance the budget...

Well, balancing the budget is just, to put it bluntly, a really bad idea. There's a reason companies will frequently borrow to expand themselves. It is often the case that to do so produces better returns than the interest/dividends rates one has to pay on those loans/dividends/whatever. By the same token, government action into funding research (which leads to people/companies expanding the economy) and socia

Well, balancing the budget is just, to put it bluntly, a really bad idea. There's a reason companies will frequently borrow to expand themselves. It is often the case that to do so produces better returns than the interest/dividends rates one has to pay on those loans/dividends/whatever. By the same token, government action into funding research (which leads to people/companies expanding the economy) and social programs (which provide a base framework of funding to keep the economic engine running even in bad times) can well pay for themselves. How do I know this to be true? Because rather consistently while the US debt has grown, the GDP has grown at a faster rate.

Actually that isn't the case at all. The budget deficit is increasing faster than the GDP is growing.

This means that the debt keeps getting bigger and bigger, even adjusting for inflation. When a company becomes heavily in debt, shows only the possibility of increasing debt, and its assets can't be liquidated to make up for that debt, the debtors begin to lose trust that this company will ever repay it

If your eyes have been open, it is pretty clear very many people are no longer using any kind of logic. Most political attitudes today are tribally based. Very rarely do people honestly consider what the other person is saying.

September 26, 1960. The debate between JFK and Nixon proves it. Those that listened on the radio though Nixon was the clear winner. Those that watched on TV though JFK won. Handsome good looks and demeanor captured the emotion. But on radio, Nixon was thought to have had more substance and intellect in the debate.

But on radio, Nixon was thought to have had more substance and intellect in the debate.

That's proven to be a myth. [tandfonline.com] And there's an easy way to test it. Put the debate on and listen to it. [jfklibrary.org] Nixon sounds unprepared, uncertain, makes awkward pauses as if awaiting some confirmation from someone - which never comes as there is no studio audience, he fumbles with words, makes comments which are shot down by Kennedy...

Kennedy DOES look better, there is no denying that, and Nixon's attempts at charm are closer to creepy than charming.But Nixon lost that debate both on the radio and on TV.

Most people don't know any of the science behind nuclear power, global warming, environmental protection, or race relations. Whether it's Democrats or Republicans, their beliefs about these subjects are based purely on what their favorite political personality tells them. So if you try to justify their position, they start spouting nonsense, and they probably don't remember what their position is if they are on their own to make a choice.

As for the presidential candidates, in practice, they were interchangeable: both Obama and Romney were bent on violating the Constitution, civil liberties, and handing large amounts of money to their buddies and constituents, at the cost of everybody else. We happened to get Obama, and he has delivered on that program "beautifully". Obama's pride and overconfidence makes it even easier for special interest groups to pull his strings than Bush's simplicity.

"When U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last year that he was not even going to try to reach 47% of the US electorate"

Got to wonder about an article that starts out this way. Grant you, I haven't gone back and reviewed the video in a while. Still, I'm pretty sure what he said was that about 47% of the population wouldn't be interested in him and a platform for a smaller government. I certainly don't recall anything even approaching the notion that he was going to ignore half the population. T

"When U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last year that he was not even going to try to reach 47% of the US electorate"

Got to wonder about an article that starts out this way. Grant you, I haven't gone back and reviewed the video in a while. Still, I'm pretty sure what he said was that about 47% of the population wouldn't be interested in him and a platform for a smaller government.

Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those peoplewe do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4

I did enjoy, however, how you removed the inflammatory notion that "there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it" and replaced it with "a platform for a smaller government."

It's amusing to call out one summary as being inaccurate and replace it with your own inaccuracies. I found the line you quoted from the summary more accurate about Romney's "giving up on them" attitude than your "they refuse a small government."

Every campaign focuses their attention on those votes they're most likely to get. You didn't see Obama spending a lot of his campaign in states that weren't likely to go his way no matter what. Certainly he had his strategy sessions that had they been publicly released wouldn't be especially flattering either.

So quote them. Go ahead, you don't think he's mindful of what he says to a large group of people? Your accusations that Obama was just as bad as Romney are backed up with absolutely zero citations.

"there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it" and replaced it with "a platform for a smaller government."

Absolutely it's inflammatory. But there is an element of truth to what he said. When you have a nation that vote themselves more stuff at the expense of the productive members of society,

Then there are the *good* people, the ones who believe you should vote in the best interests of those less fortunate than themselves. I'll always vote in the interests of the poor and I support the 99% movement, even though I'm in the 1% myself and will lose out. Romney has to persuade people like me that it's fine to be selfish but he failed.

The biggest problem with politics is that the very vocal participants are always the extremists, one way or another. Most people really don't care all that much about either party aside from one or two specific positions, like gun control or taxes or abortion rights. It's kind of like how you can't find many libertarians that are actually libertarian across a wide range of topics outside of "small government." Or like how someone will be a hardcore republican simply because they want to own firearms.

In the US there are no left wing parties.
As an example, "socialist" can be used as an insult there.
From the outside, all US politicians are right wing (meaning that they are not for wealth redistribution or any other left wing concept). It's not that hard to change from strongly conservative to not that strongly conservative.

That can't be said enough. wish i had points.I LIVE in the USA and it's so much worse having to live with their ignorance as it tears up the once great nation (or that is what I was taught, maybe it never was all that great.)

I didn't mean conservative as a derogatory term, sorry if I did, English is not my native language. I mean that school of thought that believes that believes strongly in the power of a small state, low taxes, free enterprise, and letting the wealth drip from the top to the bottom, instead of messing with it with taxes or strong intervention.
I don't mean the economy specifically, but it can't be seen apart. A person with a hundred million dollars of course can exercise more civil rights than someone who do

I didn't say in my comment that it shouldn't be an insult, I was just exemplifying why I don't believe there is a left wing in the US.
In Europe, and Latin America, many ruling parties call themselves socialist, so that's a particularly US thing.

I treat political parties like phone providers. If they don't connect with me I switch.

I'll register as whatever the dominant party is in a district so that my vote in the primary counts, because sometimes your vote is worthless in the general election. This happens most frequently with the Democratic Party in cities.

That doesn't mean "I'm a Democrat". It means that I'm using the provider that works best, and strategically using the system just like they do.

Party loyalty? For most people it makes no sense. With few exceptions, you are an idiot to claim loyalty to a party, or to think of it as virtuous. The exceptions? Influence peddlers and politicians. Lawyers also tend to be creatures of party, even if they don't get very far in the hierarchy. It's ugly though. I know a very intelligent Republican who fits into the lawyer category, and hearing him argue that Palin was a good choice was just hilarious. Now the party to which he is so loyal is disagreeing with him over immigration so they can get teh votez. Loyalty? Principal? Parties have no such thing. Loyalty to a party? Maybe it's silly for everybody, not just the common man.

So I'm guessing the other 81% said "Hey! You changed my answers!" No, I did not RTFA. The 19% are too stupid to realize answers they JUST GAVE have been switched. If RTFA shows otherwise, then the summary is pretty s#!++y.

Whether you vote Demican or Republicrat, you're basically voting the same thing. Increased government control and eroding personal liberties. You can argue on the what and how, but the why is already pretty much a fait accompli.

People flip between parties because the parties offer similar platforms. It's just a question of which gives the most bread and offers the most entertaining circuses.

...most voters are locked in to their ideological party loyalty. But Lars Hall, a cognitive scientist at Lund University in Sweden, knew better.

1) Voters are not locked into their *ideological* party. They are locked into their *political* party. This is a very important difference!

Most people follow the color, the banner, or the party name -- not the philosophy. Philosophy is something people think about, study, and decide upon using rational thought. But political parties (at least in the US) rarely actually follow a philoshy. The usually use the looser term "platform" which consists of a series of malle

You're kind of a moron, aren't you? Assuming that your opinion is the "right" one on all of the topics you list. A big part of the problem is that we limit ourselves to two opinions... liberal and conservative... and then stick to that opinion on all issues.

Personally, I'm liberal on a small portion of topics (mostly social), but fairly conservative on a wide range of other topics. Therefore if I have to label myself, I'd call myself conservative. However, if I were to list where I stand on the current "hot topics", most people would peg me as liberal.

I took a political quiz recently for fun, which pegged me as Democrat (I guess D & R were the only two outcomes)... which is funny, because I'm pretty solid in Libertarian ideals. Which also tends to be socially liberal, and conservative on other issues.

Really? Because the Republicans want to tax me and liberally give to oil and defense subsidies and CEOs, while the Democrats want to tax me and liberally give to the health insurance companies and alternate energy subsidies and CEOs.

If you don't mind me trying to get the first thread back on track, the results quoted here apply to Sweden, not necessarily the U.S.

Sweden has a multi-party parliamentary system. Parliamentary system do create inequality that favors established parties, especially first-past-the-post ones like the U.K. Yet, their process of government formation means electing small parties isn't automatic pork suicide for districts. So at least some small parties get in and influence the direction for future changes.

In other words, Swedes change their mind because they've some choice. American parties more resemble sports teams. Yes, one plays nastier than the other, but fundamentally Americans might not change their minds because neither party represents much meaningful change.

Who modded this "insightbful"? Neither party is financially (you probably meant "fiscally") responsible. Whether you agree with it or not, confiscating more of my income and further restricting what firearms I can purchase both i"interfere with [my] personal life"

I end up pretty similar. I have both liberal and conservative ideas. I also have some ideas that people will say are liberal or conservative that I have for completely different reasons. Some ideas I see as neither liberal or conservative, they just make sense when considering costs.

For instance if doing X costs Y dollars but preventing the problem costs Z and ZY then I propose we do prevention. It is not liberal or conservative.

What I find it comes down to though is that I care more about social issues tha

Same here. The only 2 planks of the republican party I agree with are smaller government and gun control is (usually) wrong. Yet those are my 2 strongest beliefs, hence I tend to vote republican even when the candidate is a total douchebag. To my mind, keeping taxes down and protecting the 2nd amendment override my feelings on gay marriage, abortion, evolution in schools, immigration, racism,... oh jeez everytime I do this I wonder why I still support republicans.

I would find this maybe sensical if the Republicans had, in the last ten or twenty years, ever actually tried to advocate for policies that were likely to actually lead to lower taxes. You can't be the party of small government while creating whole new categories of quasi-law-enforcement with unlimited powers and no accountability, and proposing to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to force the creation of Creationist-friendly textbooks, prevent women from getting abortions, prevent gay people from marrying, and so on.

They aren't the party of smaller government, and haven't been in a long time. They are the party that uses the phrase "small government" a lot while constantly looking for new ways to expand government powers and spend more money.

Having more than 2 options is very confusing to the Facebook / American Idol / iPhone crowd. You are being rude and inconsiderate by merely suggesting there might be more than 2 points of view --- are you trying to hurt these peoples mental capabilities or what?

Take a look at Political Compass [politicalcompass.org]. It at least splits economic and social issues, and does a decent job of explaining the different combinations. It also nicely shows how the Democrats and Republicans aren't as different overall as they would have you believe.

He does have a bit of a point. Who would want to vote for the party who filibustered the civil rights act?
From 1967 to 2009 they had a KKK leader as a primary leader of their party. (Byrd's first elected office was when he was elected to a KKK leadership position.)
Regarding women, they voted 170-85 against women's right to vote.

So he's got a point, who would want to vote for that party, the Democrats? I'd sure go with the party that voted FOR women's rights (Republicans 81-34 for women's right to vote , 1915), the party who pushed the Civil Rights Act through against the democrat filibuster, etc.

Well, if the Republicans of 1915 were running in current races, that would be a different matter. Heck, even the Republican party that supported Reagan-era top marginal tax rates (higher top tax rates than now) would provide a nice alternative slightly to the left of Obama. But the Republicans (and Democrats) of 2012 have little to do with groups of the same name from decades ago. With the exception of Byrd, most of the notorious anti-civil-rights Democrats (like the long-lived Strom Thurmond) eventually switched party affiliations, and ended their careers as Republican candidates. The "Southern Strategy" era, where the Republican party intentionally courted the racist vote to turn the once-solidly-blue South into the solid "red" area today was remarkably successful, and cemented the modern Republican party as undisputed champions of neo-Confederate racists and the Religious "women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" Right.

So, if you're blind to the last several decades of history, you might accidentally vote for the Republican party assuming that they were progressives in civil and gender rights. However, assuming you haven't Rip-Van-Winkled the last couple decades away in slumber, it's pretty obvious where the party currently stands.

3. #2 also applies to gays. They should have a right to live how they wish like everyone else. They don't deserve the special privileges or attention they get from the left.

What special privileges do you suppose liberals are trying to get for gays. The right to marry the person of their choice just like a heterosexual can?. The right to not be bullied for being different than the majority of other people? The right to adopt children? The right to not be demonized? The right to dress and act how they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else? You mean those special privileges?

4. The argument for gun control is childish at best: "daddy maybe if we make the guns go away no one will kill one another anymore". If the left would address the issues in its own public education system, we'd have fewer klebolds and lanzas out there.

Judgement free zones are not a right. See, the problem with identity politics is that certain groups are shielded from criticism. So the employer of a gay person has to tread lightly when the gay employee doesn't do a good job, or risk a lawsuit. This is true for women and non-white people as well. Any accusation can be deflected with a counteraccusation of discrimination (or in the case with women, outright assault). Conversely, when a protected group member gets a promotion/access to exclusive schooling/wins a legal case etc, the unprotected groups are left wondering whether this person got it by earning it, or due to (legal or white knighted) political manipulation. This PC culture has invaded nearly every aspect of life.

People in free societies do not have the right to not be criticized because the same right to wear their shit on their shoulders if they choose gives others the right to criticize (or complement) in response. In order to protect this, our culture needs to (re)learn the coping skills that, really, all people should have learned by age 15. What we have today is a culture that runs crying to the courts every time its butt gets hurt. The solution is to fix the oversensitivity, not to whitewash everything down to the lowest common denominator in order to avoid offense. The latter builds even more sensitive people who'll bitch about even smaller minutiae.--The people advocating for restrictions should be the ones who have to justify themselves.--I think there's plenty of examples, both from media outlets and in anecdotal experiences about the passive aggressive bullying and psychological manipulation that goes on in american public schools these days. The fact these shooters are targeting schools (for many, the one they graduated from) instead of just going apeshit in random places with lots more targets, suggests that their school experiences played a large role in their motivations.

Simply locking the tools away will not stop people from taking things apart. All it might do is raise the difficulty bar slightly, so instead of 26 kids dying by gunfire, it'll be 260 kids dying from a homemade explosive. The latter is harder to make/use and thus needs more motivation, but it does a lot more damage The right way to deal with these kinds of issues is to find the systemic sources and minimize them. Jumping to reactionary containment policies just builds pressure to the next critical point, resulting in more extreme reactions and counterreactions that are ultimately self defeating for everyone.

sorry, forgot to say one more thing.. as far as marriage goes, I think the state should not get involved with it, period. That frees up legal adults to enter whatever contracts they like with whomever they like.

As far as bullying goes, like I said in my other post, a lot of it comes from the systemic problems in schools, but as individuals, kids need to learn coping skills to deal with it, and adults need to be more tolerant of schoolyard squabbling.. better they have it out with fists in 6th grade than le

Bullying can also go way over the line and teachers rarely step in to stop it. Kids do learn coping skills, they are not always skills you want them to learn. Some of them have learned that shooting their classmates gets rid of the problem. It is hard to stand up to 20+ kids that want to beat you up because the teacher pointed out that you wrecked the curve for the entire class. You start to learn other methods to deal with problems. You do things like read up on human anatomy and learn nerve strikes. Kids are some of the nastiest creatures around and adults can and should intervene to keep things from getting out of hand.

3. #2 also applies to gays. They should have a right to live how they wish like everyone else. They don't deserve the special privileges or attention they get from the left.

What special privileges do you suppose liberals are trying to get for gays. The right to marry the person of their choice just like a heterosexual can?.

The special privileges granted to married couples. How about we just do away with those entirely? Allow people to form whatever family units they want. Don't give special tax statuses. Allow inheritance under uniform rules. Allow whomever somebody wants to be involved in medical decisions.

Recognizing gay marriage perpetuates the problem; the real solution is to de-recognize marriage as a special state of being. Just let people make their own decisions.

>>I will ever maintain that there's no legitimate objection to gay marriage

I agree. I am in a gay relationship with my younger brother (27), who is bi and has a girlfriend. While I am not sexually attracted to her, I like her a lot and the three of us would like to get married. However, due to current laws against incest, polygamy, and gay marriage, that's not likely to happen. We are all consenting adults; why shouldn't we be allowed to have a group marriage? I could see a potential issue if it involved minors, but if one more Republi-fascist compares our living situation to bestiality (which I find disgusting, but whatever floats your boat), I'll scream.

The general idea for 'hate crimes' is a person commits a major felony, from a select list of violent felonies, AND the evidence indicates there are additional consequences to many other people AND the perp meant to produce those consequences. That's how these laws are written in the overwhelming majority of cases, that the prosecution has to prove ALL those things. I.e Criminal X committed, for example, Murder One, and Criminal X also indicated there was intention to make many other people suffer, fear for their lives, stop exercising their rights, or otherwise be injured. Whether it's a klansman hanging a black man for having made efforts to get more black people to the polls on election day, or a rapist sending a letter to the local paper warning all women to get back to the home or be presumed whores who deserve what he's dishing out, the person charged has to commit a major felony, and has to make threats or otherwise indicate they are trying to do additional harm to others by it. So why is it a conservative position to be soft on particularly violent murderers and rapists who are trying to add more victims to their talley? How did the conservative movement ever become the appologists for the worst of the worst? How does this idea that liberals are the ones soft on crime persist when self appointed spokesmen for the right are reduced to trying to oppose punishing murderers and rapists for aggravating circumstances? Read the actual laws, not what some nut such as Coulter has said about them, and decide for yourself.

The general idea for 'hate crimes' is a person commits a major felony, from a select list of violent felonies, AND the evidence indicates there are additional consequences to many other people AND the perp meant to produce those consequences.

What's amazing is you actually trying to claim that hate crime prosecutions are actually handled this way. It's demonstrably false. People are charged with a "hate crime" whenever they are NOT a member of a "protected" group (but the victim is), and there is some media coverage of the crime. That's pretty much it. It's more to do with perceived community hatred of the perpetrator than it is the perpetrator's intent.

In my opinion a lot of people confuse libertarians with anarchists. For example, they assume libertarians are against any and all regulation. We're just against unreasonable regulation. For example, vocal libertarians such as John Stossel support the EPA regulating soot emissions from cars so that we can have clean air. But we hate regulations that for example make certain medications and surgeries needlessly expensive, or surgeries commonly performed overseas with great results that are banned here.

We're also very vocal against handing tax money to private corporations. For example, PBS is insanely profitable (its executives make over 300,000 per year) yet how dare anybody suggest we stop handing them free money, because clearly that means they hate children.

So you are for regulations where they are successful and making a net positive impact and against regulations where they are useless or hurting without net positive impact? Is that you call "libertarians"? I call it "common sense".

Minor correction: Ayn Rand was no anarcho-capitalist. Indeed, she wrote quite a bit about how the anarchists (including the anarcho-capitalists) were a bunch of idiots and any "anarcho-"system would quickly devolve into dictatorship. She was a "minarchist" using your terms: the proper role of government is police, courts, and military.

Well what do you mean by positive impact? In my opinion, regulations shouldn't extend to e.g. the trans fat, salt, msg, or sugar content of food. I think it is common sense that these are unreasonable regulations and shouldn't exist. That's just mothering people. I've already got a mother. I don't need a second one who if I disobey I'll be forced to go to jail.

Can it have a positive impact? I suppose some derp who only eats whatever he can find at the corner vendor might see a positive impact, until he goes

In my experience, opinions vary *wildly* amongst self-defined libertarians as to the definition of "unreasonable".

For example, PBS is insanely profitable (its executives make over 300,000 per year) yet how dare anybody suggest we stop handing them free money, because clearly that means they hate children.

The Federally chartered Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created by Congress specifically to keep PBS alive in the late 60s.I don't think you hate kids, I just think your ideology is based on a poor grasp of public policy.

For example, PBS is insanely profitable (its executives make over 300,000 per year) yet how dare anybody suggest we stop handing them free money, because clearly that means they hate children.

That's not true. Maybe you didn't know it was a lie, and are just stating what you honestly believe to be fact, but it's a lie all the same. I blame Romney for creating this ridiculous talking point in the debates last year.

You can review PBS's financial statements [pbs.org] for yourself. They lost ~$30 million in the past year, and a similar amount the year before -- page 5, "Change in net assets" row, "Total" columns for both 2012 and 2011.

They've got enough money that they could last for a while without public funding, but not forever. Cutting executive pay wouldn't make a difference. Also, I find it funny that banks need to pay millions of dollars of tax payer bailout dollars as bonuses to retain "top talent", but it's outrageous when PBS or schools want to spend a fraction of that to keep their top employees.

And really, it's a trivial cost for tax payers to bear (something like $1 per person per year), and provides our kids with educational programming that doesn't smother them with ads or ADHD-inducing hyperactive crap.

I think you didn't read the article. What this guy is saying is, you can get more of anybody in office by simply lying about their answers after having them take a survey. If you hire a whole bunch of people to do this before an election, maybe you can swing it your way. It's certainly no less ethical than how candidates buy,er, I mean, win elections today.

The rest of your comment was such an attention-whoring grab to support your own idiosyncratic beliefs and annoyingly full of logic fail that you should p

TFS says that as many as 47% of voters were open to changing their minds, but what percentage of those for whom we vote fall into that category? Other than drastically changing positions for the purpose of pandering to different crowds, how many politicians can hear a reasonable argument for/against a certain topic and actually be swayed?

On the other hand, how many politicians are pure party line? Repub? Must be super rich, at least sli

You know, if all it took to be equal was a declaration stating "You are now equal", African-Americans would have been free in 1865. But the real world is considerably more complex, and good intentions not backed by powerful resolve and yes, sometimes force of law and even of arms, often end up becoming empty sentiments. The US government's unwillingness to protect African-Americans from institutionalized racism in the northern states and from the more overt political, judicial and legislative racism in the southern states meant all the high rhetoric of the Abolitionists, The Emancipation Proclamation, and, no kidding, even a goddamned amendment to the Constitution did little bloody good until the Executive finally started doing things like putting soldiers between vile racists and black teenagers just trying to enjoy their lawful and natural rights, supposedly guaranteed nearly a century before.

Keep a bird in a cage most of its life, then declare if free and chuck if out the window. See how that works.

The only problem I have with gun control is I don't think it will work anymore. In the past I think that magazine limits, more background checks etc would work. Now with 3D printers becoming cheap and available and the technology improving rapidly I don't think there is anything that can realistically be done to control how many people have guns and what kinds of guns they have or how large the magazines are. I don't see the point in passing ineffectual laws.

Australia came up with a much more strict gun control laws after a massacre at a place called Newtown.The result is that they have a much lower rate of gun violence compared to before the gun control laws.Gun control works.

I think that it did work in the past and will continue to work very short term into the future. I just think it will be ineffective in 5-10 years and so a different solution must be found. If we try to solve the problem entirely with gun control then all the causes of violence will remain but the availability of guns via 3D printing will increase.

First of all, it's the rate of violence that matters, not the rate of "gun violence". Being shot to death isn't any worse than being poisoned or stabbed to death. Secondly, the rate of violent crime in the US is down by more than half over the same time period, so maybe it's the gun laws an maybe it isn't. Finally, improved safety is not an especially good reason to give up on important freedoms. Banning guns or imposing strict controls only sounds reasonable to people who don't value their gun rights in the first place.

Banning guns or imposing strict controls only sounds reasonable to people who don't value their gun rights in the first place.

You don't have to ban guns, just enact reasonable measure to ensure only appropriate guns are available for appropriate means.
And you're right, it does sounds reasonable to people who value things like health, education and safety over some redneck fascination with a weapon.

My "health, education and safety" haven't been impacted by guns so far, and that's the case for most people. While its true that some fall victim to accidents with guns or violence carried out with guns, it's not by any means a major public health crisis. It's a problem that's on the decline and even if it weren't there are other ways to address it than by restricting access to guns.

And as for "some redneck fascination with a weapon," do I sound like a redneck to you? I just don't want another "war on drugs

just enact reasonable measure to ensure only appropriate guns are available for appropriate means

Who decides what's appropriate? I strongly suspect that my definition of appropriate is quite a bit different from yours.

I'd like to see a substantial fraction of stable, law-abiding citizens armed at all times, and in all places, which is why I teach concealed weapon permit classes. I'd also like to see lots of military-style arms in private homes, and I'd specifically like to ensure that the government does not know who does or does not have them, since an important part of their purpose is to maintain

Remember there are several definitions of fairness: equality and equity. I'm a fan of equity..ie earned reward.

Typical liberal doctrine says they want equal rights.Yet their methods (laws passed, policies enacted) build systemic bias in society that benefits one group over another under the assumption (or made up malarkey) that there's an existing, systemic, opposing bias (some would call this a conspiracy theory). To my knowledge, there are no federal laws creating quotas for gays yet.. If they retain po

If you are really interested in what libertarians think about corporatism and what their policy would be in regard to it if they had power, why don't you, I don't know, like, ASK THEM [mises.org]? THIS [bleedinghe...arians.com] also might possibly cause you to re-examine things. Just google "libertarianism corporatism". I can certainly recommend investigating some of the top site hits; it was helpful to me. Libertarianism and CLASSICAL liberalism (not the abortion of liberal socialism as found in most of the West) share so many points, they are

The statistical power of a sample has pretty much zilch dependence on the population size being sampled (until you reach a near-unity portion of the population being sampled); 162 of 9.5 Million provides no less hypothesis-testing power than 162 of 1000 (assuming sampling is properly uniform; a caveat here is that the researcher has a sample of 162 voluntary-survey-responders). While it might have been nice to include statistical error bars on the percentages in the summary, the "in 9.5 Million" is irrelevant to the robustness of conclusions drawn from a sample of 162.

You didn't read my post very closely, did you? Like the part where I said "until you reach a near-unity portion of the population being sampled," which is exactly the special case you're complaining about? Please go back to your second-grade reading comprehension class (and it was the poster above, not me, who was in the intro maths course).

That's a really great statement there, and I'mma let you finish, but statistical relevance has no relevance here. It's a intellectual-sounding mean-nothing. What you meant was probably statistical significance. And the test of significance is met if the result is unlikely to have happened by chance alone.

You're going to have a hard time justifying a position that this guy's results were just a statistical fluke. You may disagree with the results. You may disagree with the method. You may even disagree with the hypothesis. But you can't say it is a "belief". The only belief here is your own: Specifically, that you believe people's political orientations can't be easily changed because you believe your political orientation is less malleable than what the author has demonstrated.

Sorry but us Americans are stubborn assholes who dont care about the issues all we care about is what the party says on the issue.

Hi. I'm an American too. We aren't all stubborn assholes. Case in point, I tracked down this poster and told a truck full of passing conservatives that a single mother lived at the poster's home address and was collecting welfare. I don't think we'll be seeing him after tonight.

Somewhat more seriously though, to the international community: We're sick of the two-party system too. It's a joke; Nobody really feels their interests are well-represented by either party. As a result, we've taken to discussing politics like it's a sporting event -- we bet on which team will win, scream and dance around in our underwear in front of the TV during the national debates, and get drunk and then either cry, or riot, when our team wins. Because while our political system is shit, we still really, really enjoy watching people we don't like fail. Take Romney for example -- his epic failure kept me happy (and warm!) through most of the frigid Midwestern winter.

Don't vote for the 2 major parties. Vote for a 3rd party, write in a name or just put none of the above. If you live in a state that's already overwhelmingly Democrat or overwhelmingly Republican, you might as well vote for a 3rd party candidate. They're less likely in the pockets of the major donors. It's time to send a message to the career politicians and switch out the incumbents.

Because the conservatives will have raised a hefty charity pool among themselves and mailed it anonymously to the address, while a Prius full of liberals would have done nothing, smug in the satisfaction that the tax dollars from the truck full of conservatives kept the single mother in bondage to the liberal government?

You don't watch the news [wbur.org] much, do you? They're trying to turn public education into an actual Hunger Games... do you really think they're into charity?

In fact the original post does look at it through "American-tinted" glasses. For example, to describe the two coallitions as conservative vs social democrat/green is wrong. The big divisive ideological gap is rather "liberal" vs "social democrat" and the "conservative" coallition consists of 3 liberal party and only one conservative (the christian democrats, which is currently below 4% of the votes). In Swedish ears (I am a Swede in exile), "conservative" has a negative ring to it. Also in other European co